On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY
to MY code
as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely
nothing to say
about what you do with YOUR code.
PLease correct me if I'm wrong: my understanding is that the
granularity
of the GPL is the "project"; all source files that make up that
project
must be GPLed. Is that correct? I believe so, and the FSF's GPL FAQ
would seem to agree with me*:
Q: If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the
GPL as the
license for my module?
A: The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released
under the GPL.
So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
It says right there that if I want to add a new module (file/
whatever) to
a GPLed program, I MUST USE THE GPL FOR MY CODE. I have no choice
in this
matter: the GPL has "spread" to my module, and can therefore be
described
as being viral in nature. QED.
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
You can always *not use* MY code. The GPL applies, ab initio, only to
MY code.
* See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
The GPL, which as you know is built on copyright, is a purely
voluntary
license - revealing the analogy to be worthless and the claim pure
FUD.
But it's not a voluntary license. If I want to contribute to a
GPLed project,
The interesting use case of "contributing", and I think the one that
spurred the creation of the GPL, is "I use this but I need to
customise it a bit". In this situation it's quite reasonable that you
would abide by the conditions I've chosen for the stuff you're using.
If you have a chunk of your work that you wish to disinterestedly
check into somebody's GPL project, then it may seem as if the license
is an imposition. But it's not: You can still publish it elsewhere
under any license.
my code must also be GPLed; I have no say in the matter. Contrast
this to
the CDDL: provided the license I choose for my files is compatible
with the
CDDL, I can license my code however I like. Unlike the GPL, my
code does
NOT have to CDDLed, and therefore the CDDL cannot be said to be
viral in
nature.
'Viral' is just not the right term. Rather than spreading it (as I
say, associated with some of the ugliest and most dishonest
campaigns), it seems you should just admit that you personally don't
happen to like this clause of the GPL (which is designed to protect
users from familiar catastrophes). But many do, or they wouldn't
deliberately choose this license.
But this is OT enough by now.
--Toby
Viruses - whether biological or Windows-borne - are not something you
generally get to refuse.
See above.
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member
CEO,
My Online Home Inventory
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
